Olney v. Hobble
| Decision Date | 07 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 43988,43988 |
| Citation | 193 Kan. 692,396 P.2d 367 |
| Parties | Application of Boyd D. Olney for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Boyd D. OLNEY, Appellee, v. Herbert HOBBLE, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where, in a habeas corpus action, under the facts and circumstances such as are more fully set forth in the opinion, a respondent has had the party in his custody or under his restraint and has transferred it to another, he shall, under the provisions of G.S.1949, 60-2210, Third, be required to give the name of the party, or parties, to whom such transfer was made.
Chas. Vance, Liberal, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
John C. King, Liberal, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
This was a habeas corpus action by a father to gain custody of his infant son. This appeal stems from an order of the trial court finding defendant-respondent (appellant) H. Hobble, Jr. guilty of contempt. The facts pertaining to the determinative issue in the case are as follows:
Boyd D. Olney, plaintiff-petitioner (appellee), hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, filed his original petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Betty J. Ingland, his former wife, seeking possession of their child. A writ issued to which Betty filed her return stating the child had been left at the Stevens County Hospital in Hugoton.
Subsequent thereto plaintiff filed an amended petition alleging that since the filing of his original petition he had discovered certain facts which made it proper that additional parties be included as respondents, and was granted permission to add the names of H. Hobble, Jr., and John and Mary Doe, his wife, whose real nanes were unknown to the plaintiff. In his amended petition plaintiff alleged he and Betty J. Ingland were husband and wife from June 15, 1962, the date of their marriage, until they were divorced in Seward county February 15, 1963; that at the time of the divorce Betty was pregnant, which fact was concealed from the court and from the plaintiff, and by reason of such concealment no provision was made for the care and custody of the child to be born; that on June 1, 1963, in the Stevens County Hospital, Betty gave birth to a child of which the plaintiff was the father; that she concealed the facts of the birth from him and that he did not learn of the same until June 20; that on June 7 appellant Hobble, together with John and Mary Doe, appeared at the hospital in Hugoton, and with the consent of the mother of said child, removed it therefrom and ever since said time have illegally restrained it and kept it from custody of the plaintiff. The writ was directed to H. Hobble, Jr. and John Doe and Mary Doe, his wife, and in response to the writ H. Hobble, Jr. filed his return in which he alleged he was not illegally restraining any child born to Betty, that said child was not in his custody and it was therefore impossible for him to produce the body of the child before the court as commanded. No service of writ was had on John and Mary Doe.
The case proceeded to trial and the plaintiff testified that he and Betty were married June 15, 1962 and lived together until a few days before Thanksgiving; that Betty told plaintiff in September she was pregnant; that they were divorced February 15, 1963. The evidence disclosed the child was born at the Stevens County Hospital June 1, 1963, and that the birth certificate shows the father as 'unnamed.'
Appellant Hobble testified that he was employed as attorney for his clients, above referred to as John and Mary Doe, for the purpose of getting them a child; that early in June 1963 he obtained from Betty Ingland a written consent for the adoption of her child and obtained her signature to such instrument; that he went with his clients to the hospital at Hugoton for the purpose of getting the child of Betty Ingland, and did so; and that his clients took the child from the hospital.
At this juncture appellant Hobble was requested by the court to give the names of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olney v. Gordon, 5--3873
...Hobble to get that information. After more than a year of litigation Olney won his case in the Supreme Court of Kansas. Olney v. Hobble, 193 Kan. 692, 396 P.2d 367 (1964). There was some additional delay before Olney was finally told that his son was in the custody of the Gordons, who were ......